Police Perjury: a Factorial Survey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey Author(s): Michael Oliver Foley Document No.: 181241 Date Received: 04/14/2000 Award Number: 98-IJ-CX-0032 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. FINAL-FINAL TO NCJRS Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey h4ichael Oliver Foley A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The City University of New York. 2000 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. I... I... , ii 02000 Michael Oliver Foley All Rights Reserved This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. iii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in satisfaction of‘the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date Dr. Barry Spht Chair of Examining Committee Executive Officer Dr. Charles Bahn 7 .Dr. James Levine Supervisory Committee The City University of New York This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. iv Abstract Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey by Michael 0. Foley Advisor: Professor Barry Spunt Lying is a common feature of modem life and is as common or more common than honesty (Douglas, 1976). The question we must ask ourselves, since lying is so common place, is whether lying is d’eviant or a socially acceptable norm. In either case there appears to be a tolerance level beyond which lying is not acceptable. The use of lying, and deception by police in their daily activities has been acknowledged, justified and approved by the Courts, police departments and society.The distinction between tolerated lying and reprehensible perjury in New York Stateisdescribed in the Penal Law. Despite this clear definition of perjury, the Mollen Commission Report (I 994) on corruption in the New York City Police Department rarely used the term “perjury”. It did recognize that police practices of falsification were so common that it This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. V Abstract (Continued) spawned its own word "testilying". Testilying and falsifications are simply euphemisms for perjury. This study, of five hundred eight (508) New York City police officers, utilizes the factorial survey method to determine the underlying conditions and circumstances that an officer would take into account in making a decision to commit perjury. h'lore than one hundred police officers were interviewed and a subsequent focus group of six officers was conducted to identify nine dimensions and fifty levels as reasonable categories for the factorial survey. Respondents were given questionnaires containing twenty-four unique vigne?tes and asked to rriake a judgment on each one. Each vignette depicted a typical I arrest situation that a police officer might encounter on a daily basis. In anticipation that some officers would not have variability in their responses two additional instruments were included as an evaluation method; a neutralization scale (Sykes and Mat3 1957) and a short form of the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability (Lie) Scale (Reynolds, 1982). This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. vi Acknowledgments The road leading to the research described in this dissertation has been long, circuitous and rift with deitours. Its’ completion would not have been possible without the tireless support and encouragement from numerous individuals in my life. I am gratehl to ihe National Institute of Justice and Director Jeremy Travis for finding this research under grant #981JCXOO32. The New York City Police Department, particularly Commissioner Howard Safr, Deputy Commissioner Michael Farrell and D.1 Joseph Lovelock for granting permission to conduct this study and members of the New York City Police Department for their candor and participation. To Debbie Baskin Sommers for her direction in helping me map the road for this research; Susan Crimmins, Quint Thurman and hlichael Shively for their continuous support, understanding and encouragement. I am icdebted to my committee, Charles Bahn, James Levine and particularly my mentor 13arr-y Spunt for their tolerance, guidance, understanding and critical questioning. To my mother, Joan, and my children Tara, Siobhan and Michael Jr. who are my life source arid make all things worth while. Finally, I dedicate this research to the memory of my father Detective 1st Grade, Oliver P. Foley, New Yo:rk City Housing Police, 1953 - 1973, an honest man and in the police vernacular “a true gentleman.” This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. vii Table of Contents Chapter I Introduction To The Study Of Police Perju ry.... ...................... 1 Purpose of the Study........... ............................ ........... 1 Scope ofthe Problem ........................................................... 4 Method of Studying Police Perju ry... .......................... 11 S ignificance......................................................................... 12 I Chapter II Lying and Deception ....... ........................................ ...... 16 Plnilosophy of lying ..................................... P:jycholo~of lying.. .. ........................... Sociology of lying ...... .................................... Deception in other professions .... 1 ........................................ 25 Chapter 111 Police Perjury Research ................................................................ 29 Forms of police perjury ...................... ........................ 29 Summary of previous research.. ......... ........................ 35 Chapter IV R?ethod .......................................... ........................................... 5 1 Problems in researching police perjury ................................. 5 1 The factorial survey design.. ............... ......................... 55 Factorial survey design assumptions...................................... 57 Dimensions, levels and vignette design ................................. 59 Neutralization. .......................... Marlowe- Crowne social desirability scale (lie scale). ............ 63 a This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Table of Contents (Continued) Sa.mple/data collection .......................................... ;. ............ 65 Additional data ................................................................... 68 Individual rating mean ........................................................ 70 Analysis model .................................................................... 70 Research questions .............................................................. 73 Hypothesis .......................................................................... 73 .. Sample characteristics ........................................................ 77 Chfipter V Findings From Vignette Data Analysis ........................................ 85 Miiltiple regression of vignette ratings ................................ 85 ‘ Subsample vignette analysis ................................................ 93 Individual influences of vignette ratings ............................. 102 Chapter VI Conclusion .................................................................................. 131 Appendices ........................................................................................................ 139 A . Dimensions and levels ...........................................................